G.R. No. 150157 - Manliclic vs. Calau

Petitioners: Jose Ma. Ansaldo, for himself and as attorney-in-fact of Maria Angela Ansaldo; Respondents: Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr., Acting Chairman, Commission on Audit (COA), and Baltazar Aquino, Minister of Public Highways (Department of Public Works and Highways — DPWH).
Property: Two titled lots (TCT No. 4884, Registry of Deeds for Rizal) aggregating 1,041 square meters, owned by the Ansaldos and converted into part of Sta. Mesa Street (now Ramon Magsaysay Avenue), San Juan, Metro Manila.

Taking/possession: The Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communication (predecessor of DPWH) took possession and converted the lots into a public thoroughfare circa 1947. The owners did not protest and remained silent for decades.
Claim and administrative actions: On January 22, 1973 the Ansaldos sought compensation. Secretary of Justice issued an opinion on February 22, 1973 advising that just compensation be paid under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 76 and that an expropriation suit be instituted. DPWH requested re-determination of market value under PD 76; Bureau of Public Highways’ Auditor recommended payment based on current fair market value (not value at time of taking). The Commission on Audit, however, on September 26, 1973 ruled that compensation is to be determined as of the time of the taking (1947). COA reaffirmed this ruling on September 8, 1978 and January 25, 1979 (denying reconsideration).
Constitutional/legislative context: PD No. 76 (eff. Dec. 6, 1972) provided valuation rules using owner-declared or assessor-determined values (whichever lower). Those provisions were later declared unconstitutional in Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay (149 SCRA 305, 1988) as encroaching on the judiciary’s prerogative to determine just compensation in eminent domain proceedings.
Proceedings in the Supreme Court: The Ansaldos appealed COA’s rulings to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 50147). The case was decided August 3, 1990.

Whether just compensation for the expropriated lots must be fixed as of the time of the actual taking/possession by the Government in 1947, or as of the time of filing of expropriation proceedings (or a later date).

Whether the owners’ prolonged silence and apparent acquiescence affect the characterization of the taking or the entitlement to compensation.
Whether PD No. 76’s valuation scheme is controlling in this case (given its later invalidation in EPZA v. Dulay) and whether any administrative recommendations (e.g., assessment of current fair market value) bind the COA or the Court.